Was B24 vs B17 same as Halifax vs Lanc?

Just to bring it to the attention of the Sherman fanbois out there.

Grab your torches and pitchforks! ;)

Funny enough I do think the Sherman was a good tank. Doesn't mean one can't acknowledge the fact there was a reason the British called it a Ronson lighter.(at least until ammo stowage was fixed)
 
Funny enough I do think the Sherman was a good tank. Doesn't mean one can't acknowledge the fact there was a reason the British called it a Ronson lighter.(at least until ammo stowage was fixed)

That was more down to the Desert Rat habit of packing every spare inch of the turret with ammunition, POL etc, making them more flammable than a hyperactive toddler in a shell suit at a petrol and matches party than faulty design though.

I have read (if I can remember where I'll stick the links somewhere relevant) that the Panther was a lot worse than the Sherman for going up when hit (if the proper ammo storage was used).
 

hammo1j

Donor
Thanks very much for replies so far.

Seems the B17 vs B24 is much closer than the Halifax and Lancaster. (but mind you the Lancaster was in its turn about a 1/4 of the Mosquito so no perfection there)

I know the Sherman thing has come up so many times now. Really this is the most underestimated piece of machinery ever.

2/3 of the price of a T34 - the Russian crews preferred the Sherman
Firefly option was still not quite the German uber tank but it was close to a match.

But most importantly in terms of its colossal production it mean more Allied guys were sitting in Tanks.

Obviously 1 Tiger vs 1 Sherman then you want to be sat in the Tiger

But 10-12 Shermans vs the Tiger = definitely wasted Tiger vs 3-4 of the Shermans - the Sherman is the better option.
 
Top